Slashdot Mirror
Creationism In Texas Public Schools
An anonymous reader writes "Slate reports on new anti-science education coming out of Texas. The state has a charter school system called Responsive Education Solutions, which is publicly funded. Unfortunately, 'it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement and to far-right fundamentalists who seek to undermine the separation of church and state.' The biology workbook used in these schools actually reads, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." It also brings up social Darwinism as if it's an aspect of evolutionary theory and introduces doubt that the Earth is billions of years old. The article continues, 'To get around court rulings, Responsive Ed and other creationists resort to rhetoric about teaching "all sides" of "competing theories" and claiming that this approach promotes "critical thinking." In response to a question about whether Responsive Ed teaches creationism, its vice president of academic affairs, Rosalinda Gonzalez, told me that the curriculum "teaches evolution, noting, but not exploring, the existence of competing theories."' Other so-called education texts being used by the Responsive Ed program teach Western superiority and how feminism forced women to 'turn to the state as a surrogate husband.'"
Shouldn't the opening of the Biology workbook alone be enough to get this squashed?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Born and raised, got out of there as soon as a can. Still like to visit my friends and the cheese enchiladas are incomparable but it's a hot, sweaty hellhole full of bible thumping nitwits.
Goes without saying with most people here .. but please tell me there is a court challenge in progress, as religious indoctrination has no place in public schools ...
and we wonder why STEM involvement is perpetually an issue in the US.
I'm fine with that. Teach that the vast overwhelming majority of the world's scientists support the theory of evolution by natural selection, a handful of people support intelligent design, and millions more support unintelligent design, the theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. (Disclaimer: I am an ordained Pastafarian Minister)
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
These schools are also in Arkansas and Indiana.
Other so-called education texts being used by the Responsive Ed program teach Western superiority and how feminism forced women to 'turn to the state as a surrogate husband."
It brings up a whole new connotation when they say "fuck the state"!
It also brings up social Darwinism as if it's an aspect of evolutionary theory
Actually, Social Darwinism is the one kind of Darwinism your typical Creationist is happy to believe whole-heartedly in. If you start believing the poor might not necessarily deserve to be poor, a whole lot of modern Republican politics suddenly starts to look very unchristian.
Because the laws of economics suggest more productive members of society increase supply for goods a little more than they increase demand for them, and thus benefit everyone?
Why look at trillion dollar deficits that are destroying the economy, widespread graft and corruption in our political elites, or ongoing job losses in America when when can talk about the Westborough Baptist Church or a Hispanic stranger shooting a black stranger or a creationist school somewhere in Texas?
Let's manufacture distractions to keep you from looking at the real issues...
Tornado touches down and vaporizes the Responsive Ed corporate headquaters. No hands were lost, but several people were struck by flying Stop signs.
I hate to be harsh about this, and I do feel sorry for the kids involved (they didn't ask to be taught dumb shit). But wtf do I care if a bunch of bible-thumping loonies want to teach their kids to be fucking stupid, just like mom and dad? If parents want to turn their kids into idiots, that less competition for me when the world needs real engineers to do real shit (stuff that requires real math, not prayer).
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Maybe it's because we fire 10% of our engineers in a year, but claim there's a shortage. There's multiple things going on here in the U.S. but mostly we haven't come to terms with being a post-industrial society.
kinda scary unless you want to create a lot of drones
The worst mistake that we can make is believe that we humans do know it all. We observe, we learn, we draw conclusions...repeat. We need to teach critical thinking and allow our youth to draw their own conclusions and learn to challenge everything they are taught.
There are many theories on how the universe and life began. I for one have no issue being taught the top 5 theories where there are differing opinions, order the teachings randomly, but pass along who believes what and why they believe it. Allow the student to draw their own conclusions. They'll be stronger for it.
I was taught in both public and private Christian schools. I have my own beliefs that differ from others, and that is fine. Do I believe Darwin's theory? Sure I do. Do I believe in the lessons in the Bible? Sure I do. Do I believe that we humans are infallible? Nah, and that extends into both science and religion, people were involved in the interpretation, teaching, and writing of both.
Now for the binary solo. 0000001, 00000011 000000111, 00001111 0000001, 00000011 000000111, 00001111.
Here's the problem. We think we're dumb too, and can't do anything about it.
Those who believe these "textbooks" aren't going to believe in evolution anyway. Their family's and church's biases wouldn't let that happen.
The problem is legal standing. Unless someone at the school objects (which is unlikely), then there won't be a court case about it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The understanding that Genesis is a metaphorical, and not literal, goes as far back as the 4th century (even further, possibly, that is just what am aware of explicitly from my early church history studies). Protestantism is very recent compared to that, and this protestant misinterpretation of scripture as being literal is more recent still.
A bunch of relatively uneducated Christians cooked up this weird and grossly simplistic way of reading scripture, and it has become wildly popular, and gives the entire religion a bad name. :(
It's not a question of whether the science can withstand it, it's a question of whether the students will be properly educated. The science of combustion would survive a course that was split 50/50 between modern chemistry and phlogiston theory, but I don't think the children's usefulness as future scientists would escape the process intact.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Right, but the concern is for the people who enjoy science and have some intent of being useful members of society and are going to be denied the opportunity to learn in order to protect some peoples' biases from information they disagree with.
Yes, it is. Do you have some proposition to fix it?
I wonder how hard it would be to get them to teach about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Hell, I would enroll in that class!
It's not a "theories on how the universe and life began class", though, it's a "biology" class. If you want to teach kids ontology, then by all means advocate the creation of a class for that purpose, but don't try to craft one out of the existing and important lessons on the science of living things.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Troll. Creationism isn't falsifiable. Bam, done.
I have to say, as a non American, our Christians are horribly broken as well, probably not as much, but their tendencies are the same.
Here in south-west Germany the state government sought out to teach about sexual diversity in sex-ed classes, like the 'natural existence' of homosexuality, bisexuality and stuff like that, in order to squash the prevalent homophobia in schools.
The protestant Christian church supports an anti-movement (petition) that wants to ban this stuff from the curriculum as it is seen as indoctrinating people to commit acts against nature and god (you know, because knowing about homosexuality will definitely turn you gay). And because the state should not be involved in indoctrination. Yet they support their religion indoctrination classes that are opt-out in public schools.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, and thus is also not a competing scientific theory. If you really think that 'science' cannot "withstand alternative theories", then you really don't know anything about science at all.
It's always important to let stereotypes dominate any discussion of the right thing to do.
This story is not about textbook selection, but textbook selection is the primary viral decay effect that Texas has on national education, and it is very important.
The problem with Texas textbook selection is that Texas buys its textbooks 4.8m at a time (which is a huge chunk of the textbook market). Publishers cannot afford to lose Texas as a customer, so you get "the walmart effect" - Texas censors national textbooks by approving the one they like, everyone else can pick from the one texas drove the price down on, or they can pay twice as much for a "marginally more correct" textbook. In this way, Texas can dictate the behavior of national (and even international, to an extent) textbooks, because Texas is giant, organized, and horribly corrupted by the religious reich err, right.
The issue with pubically funded charter schools teaching bullshit mysticism instead of educating children is that charter schools are a convenient back door for this anti-science, conservative consortium to exert its corrupting influence on the texas education system. They are normalizing, perpetuating, and setting legal precident for further fucking over the entire United States education system.
Please care about this. This is important. Our future depends on the nation collectively saying "WTF, Texas"
I'm quite used to seeing trolls publish this sort of rot, but how the heck did it get even one upvote? Are there still people who can't understand the difference between "competing theories" and "competing theories with wildly differing levels of validity"?
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
This is why America is in decline.
Because drooling morons and Luddites are being allowed to teach their nut-job theories on the same footing as actual science.
America continues on the decline to voluntary ignorance, and this is little better than the Taliban -- a bunch of religious fundamentalists who can't accept reality as it exists, but wish to impose their beliefs on it and define it as true.
Fuck you, fuck your god, fuck your stupid notions about how the world works, and fuck your creationism.
That these people hold political office and somehow function in the real world astounds me.
Because this level of stupidity should have caused you to be killed before surviving to adulthood.
Fucking morons. The rest of the country suffers because you guys are fucking idiots.
Publicly funded charter schools, as is says right there in the damn summary. Public funding for any religious instruction is illegal, and for extremely good reasons. Every culture in history that went down that path ended up collectively insane and wildly dangerous.
a theory needs scientific and experimental proof
not someone making stuff up and calling it a theory or saying it should be this way since we can't think up of anything else
there are dozens of theories about the structure of the universe, each with their own math proofs that are being sorted out. where is your experimental proof?
And it should be included alongside the science of Sasquatch and Ghosts. Interesting concepts, but not verified. And go over why they are not falsifiable.
I think you're underestimating how much funding is being channeled away from public schools to fund charter schools, with the "dumping money on public schools doesn't solve problems, dumping money on charter schools does." initiative.
It's actually the one thing that makes me leery of the Gates foundation, who normally does good work.
Additionally, are they teaching ALL religions' creation theories or just their own little Christian one? I mean, if they gave equal time to Muslim stories of creation, and mentioned people by their Arabic names, then sure, it wouldn't bother me nearly as much and might actually hold up to the "all competing *beliefs*", *not* "theories". Oh, I'm sorry, they'd never teach anything about those "Ay-rabs" or ... (That's the single most effective way to quash this - give them what they want but require they give equal time to beliefs that they don't believe in. It'll bring out their true colors faster than putting a brand new red shirt in a load of white laundry...)
A lecture on natural law would have been out of place and unhelpful to the faithful for the following 5,000 years; the message was simply "I, God, made you and this world."
The fact that this short message was stretched out to a seven-day process in no way makes it literal. The specifics of creation were not the point, and would have been lost on those folks; so it was omitted. Those same young earth creationists must believe that the God of Abraham has a bit of Loki the Norse Trickster god in him, given that there is so much physical evidence contradicting a 6,000 year old earth. Either that, or they must believe that there's a massive satanic conspiracy to invent evidence for an earth billions of years old, an equally preposterous claim.
Religion gives us the 'Why' of life; science is the 'How.' They cannot serve each other's purposes.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I guess it boils down to the fundies are broken. I am lucky that here I tend to meet more of the saner Christians. I suppose that breed is becoming scarce world wide. A pity indeed.
We just had a layoff at work and about 1/3 of our engineering was let go (50-100 size). Interesting that it was almost exclusively Americans that were let go and all the Asians and Indians were still allowed to stay. Note, this is a Bay Area job. Ie, the USA. And at this point, not a single American is employed there in engineering.
Was it done to improve quality? Of course not. I find it highly suspicious how they picked who is to stay and who is to go. But, fwiw, everyone who was allowed to stay is an H1B holder.
I do not consider " teaching "all sides" of "competing theories" to be rhetoric. If "science" cannot withstand alternative theories to be taught alongside their theories then it is not science. Those advocating creationism have just as many valid points as the rabid theorists believing as they do.
Science *has* withstood alternative theories being taught alongside. In fact, those "alternative theories" were the *only* thing being taught for a few thousand years. Our current understanding is thanks to brilliant people who 'taught the controversy' of modern science over the past few hundred years and have almost won.
Religious creation myths are not the underdog; they dominated the world when there was no alternative; as soon as one appeared, they crumbled. Nonsense like creationism is just a last-ditch attempt by particular church leaders to cling on to their power. They know they're on the way out, so don't mind alienating the majority in order to radicalise a few.
If you believe in "government by the people", then you will eat your own dog food and accept what "the people" demand. After all, your core philosophy is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Well, guess what? The many have spoken, and this time, YOU are the few.
There are many theories on how the universe and life began.
This article is about evolution. Evolutionary theory is silent on how life first began. Read up a little before you weigh in with such a huge misconception. Here, take a look at this; it includes a cartoon to clarify the point.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml
Charter Schools are typically funded via public money. So while they are not public in that they can pick and choose who they let in, they are public in the sense that they are publicly funded.
To me this is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state. If these were private schools it would be completely different, but charter schools are not private schools.
If it is nationally funded then they should stop or not accept federal money, but if it is only locally funded then who are we to force people from teaching what they believe. You can say that you want to stop it to protect their children, but they probably feel the same way about your children. At what point does a community no longer have a say in what it teaches its own children, when do you say it is okay to force people to do something they don't believe in, and in that case should you not expect someone to force you to do something you don't believe in.
Long story short it's 2014, not 1914, and not 1964. The hippies are the man now.
lose != loose
It's always important to let stereotypes dominate any discussion of the right thing to do.
You'd be surprised how many people actually think stereotypes are accurate representations of populations as a whole.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Take a look at the arguments used by Creationists in the Responsive Ed workbook:
Many of them are very similar to the arguments used by "skeptics" of Global Climate Change.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Scientific Theory: Something that describes the current state of the world in a way that makes testable predictions about the future. Useful in furthering our knowledge. Should be taught in science classes.
Colloquial "Theory": Any explanation that potentially describes the current state of the world. Not testable. Makes no predictions about the future. Potentially useful in exploring moral or ethical quandaries. Should be taught in philosophy classes.
Please learn the difference. Teach creationism if you want, I don't give a rat's ass. But don't teach it in a science classroom. It is not science. It never will be science.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
The bigger point is: fuck it, let Texas be ignorant of science. That's their choice.
Move if you don't like it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Err, do you have any specific objections or are you just waving your hands at the article and going "douuuuuuubt iiiiiiiiiiiit"?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
We also fire engineers when there is a shortage of work even though we know that in 2 months we are starting up a new project and are going to need to hire to meet program needs. Keeping engineers on overhead for even a day while the program works its way through corporate policy is unacceptable.
Probably because it's not easy legally to fire an H1B before their visa time is up.
Opens the company to more lawsuits, and requires them to pay for the trip home.
http://www.murthy.com/2012/11/01/bona-fide-termination-requirement-for-h1b-employee/
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Because pragmatic concerns don't exist? Universal rights, like freedom of religion, shouldn't need some debate over "if you don't like your rights being trampled, move".
A holiday... Dumb Pride Day will cheer everybody up.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Force Mexico to take back Texas?
Maybe the drug lords would like it.
Just get it the fuck off our hands.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
You'd be surprised how many stereotypes turn out to be right on when it comes to Texas...
The pragmatic solution is to move.
There will always be groups of ignorant people. There will always be groups of non-ignorant people.
More to where you'd like to be.
Unless they're being forced to live in Texas, what rights are being trampled?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I'm not aware of any scientific (falsifiable) explanation for how species came to be the way they are other than evolution. Also, the book states as fact that God created the world. It's obviously introducing religion into a science textbook, which is completely different from describing competing alternative scientific hypotheses.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
"Yeah, just get both parents to get new jobs in the same place, sell a house, buy a house, get children into a new school system, and go through the physical hassle of moving, just so some po-dunct theocrat can have their way, ignoring the law of the land"
Do you know how stupid what you're proposing sounds?
How does Texas prepare students for Med School? Do they finally start teaching science when a student is in college or do they have to leave the state completely?
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household, and while it took a while to shake off the emotional baggage associated with such an upbringing, I am now a productive member of society and opponent of creationism being taught on the tax payer's dollar. While one's beliefs are likely to be influenced by their parents', each individual still has the ability to form their own belief system, and I chose science and reason.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Oh my God! Choices have consequences!
Because no one in this country is capable of moving, or something.
Try choosing where you live carefully.
Also, charter schools are also a choice, so it's not actually ignoring the law of the land, they're purposely going around it.
As in "psychically predict where psychopaths are going to attempt to overturn the first amendment, and live somewhere else."
Exactly. Even if our entire understanding of science is wrong, there is at least value in teaching the scientific process.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Santa Clause comes from the North Pole. The Easter Bunny comes from the East Pole. Uncle Sam comes from the South Pole on July 4th. And the Wicked Witch comes from the West Pole on Halloween. (That's what I tell my 4-yo son and I live in Texas.)
Mexico has enough problems to deal with without you adding to them.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I remember during one of the Bush 2 nationally televised debates; All of the Republican hopefuls were on stage and the question was asked “do you believe in evolution” – not a single one on stage raised their hand. It’s a sad state when the leader of the free world can’t have a foundation in science or critical thinking as a prerequisite to the job. There is not one single example in the history of mankind of a successful theocracy. The evidence tends to point to the exact opposite – the increase of religion leads to the downfall of any given society.
Do I believe in the lessons in the Bible? Sure I do.
Either you're a dangerous sociopath, either you cherry picked the lessons that make sense and chose to ignore the others. What other holy book did you use as an axiomatic ruleset to do the cherry picking ?
You'd be surprised how many people actually think stereotypes are accurate representations of populations as a whole.
Exhibit The First? The summary up top there:
'it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement and to far-right fundamentalists who seek to undermine the separation of church and state.'
Lots of hot-button words in there to stoke the fires of internal prejudice (leading to the aforementioned stereotyping), yes?
Personally, I find it hilarious in a way.
As a Catholic, I have zero problems with the theory of evolution, and find it consistent not only with logic and science, but with my own theological understandings. Funny enough, the Vatican has zero problems with it either.
But wait - it gets better. I do think church and state should remain completely separate entities, with one caveat: that the state at least recognize that 'church' (in the generic Judeo-Christian sense) played a highly important role in the creation and development of the 'state' (nope - that's not a troll: see also the reason why the words "Laus Deo" are carved into the very tip of the Washington Monument, among numerous other examples).
That said, every time this subject comes up, there's always this flood of smugness, almost as if it were manipulated into being; the fact that the summary is filled with hot-button words seems to prove me correct on this theory more and more... Mind you, this applies to both extremes of the debate, and there are no angels here. I was just hoping that this site, of all places, the verbiage could at least be made not-so-inflammatory (unless we're talking about patent trolls or Microsoft - then savage them at will, because they kinda deserve it. Okay okay - just kidding...)
TBH, with few exceptions they've so far done a fairly decent job of it (no, really!), but if I want political fires stoked, I can get that on the MSNBC or FOX websites.
(yep - prolly gonna get modded down, but meh.)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Amen, well maybe not. I grew up in the same sort of household and was likely the bane of my middle school teacher's existence as I was basically a proxy for my parent's beliefs in my argument against evolution. It wasn't until college that I finally opened up enough to be fully deprogrammed. I paid my penance by teaching evolutionary anthropology in Texas, but even among the undergrads there I suspect that I wasn't able to convert as many as I could.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Yeah, because it happens so suddenly.
It's as if this issue, or gun law issues, or drug law issues or most other issues, are just brand fucking new.
Stop crying and live with your choices or make new ones.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Really, I was hoping that the drug lords would clean up the idiocy that is rampant in Texas.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Unless I can loudly say "la la la la what bullshit la la la" during this prayer, it is depriving me of my free speech.
That I can't says that your prayer is trumping my rights, and has no place in public school. Keep it in your church, or at home.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Over 300 years ago, Isaac Newton discovered the laws of gravity which describe the attractive force between all objects. Newton’s laws of motion predicted the orbits of the planets around the Sun. Because he used approximations when calculating the forces of the planets upon each other, he came to the conclusion that the orbits are unstable and would decay after thousands of years. Newton suggested that God occasionally intervened with a miracle, by sending a comet or other object with just the right direction, size, and velocity, to gravitationally nudge the planets back into their correct orbits. Years after Newton, Pierre Laplace found better methods to solve Newton’s equations, showing that the planetary orbits are indeed stable. When asked by Napoleon, “Monsieur Laplace, why wasn’t the Creator mentioned in your book on celestial mechanics?”, Laplace replied, “Sir, I have no need for that hypothesis.” Laplace was likely an atheist, but we know that his findings about planetary motion were true. If he were a believer, he could have just as well said, “We don’t need to explicitly invoke God’s miraculous intervention when describing planetary motion.” Two hundred years prior, John Calvin wrote, “If the Lord has willed that we be helped in physics, dialectic, mathematics, and other like disciplines, by the work and ministry of the ungodly, let us use this assistance. For if we neglect God’s gift freely offered in these arts, we ought to suffer just punishment for our sloth.”
To this day, Newton’s law of gravity and his equations of planetary motion hold true, but we have a much better understanding of them through Einstein’s special and general relativity, and a much richer understanding of cosmology from hundreds of years of subsequent research, much of which was done by Christians. Interestingly enough, Einstein’s theory was also met with pseudoscientific criticism [XIII-3]. In a 1920 letter to a colleague, Einstein wrote, “This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.”
- Excerpted from the online book at: http://truecreation.info/
References:
[XIII-1] Haarsma, Loren. Does Science Exclude God? Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. 2003, William B. Erdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan. pp. 88-94.
[XIII-2] http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v3/n3/history-of-ideas
[XIII-3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_relativity_theory#Hundred_authors_against_Einstein
[XIII-4] Van Dongen, Jeroen. “On Einstein’s Opponents, and Other Crackpots.” Essay review of “Einsteins Gegner. Die àöàÇffentliche Kontroverse um die Relativitàößtstheorie in den 1920er Jahren” by Milena Wazeck. (arxiv.org/pdf/1111.2181)
Another aspect of the problem is that Texas has an almost overwhelming say in what gets put into textbooks due to their size as a purchasing entity. Letting a few charter schools get away with it lets the crazy people get their foot in the door to further shoving their Christofascist worldview onto everybody else.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
You'd be surprised how many stereotypes turn out to be right on when it comes to Texas...
Yup, that's exactly the sort of mentality that perpetuates ignorant hatred.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
“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 nonsense 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 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 and 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.”
– St. Augustine of Hippo, 5th Century AD (considered by some Protestants to be one of the theological fathers of the Reformation)
(from http://truecreation.info/)
...about the use of the words "could probably" instead of "should certainly."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That's not actually true.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Stop crying when my choice is to get the government to put the tyrants down in conjunction with basic human rights.
"One or more people appear to meet stereotype at first glance, therefor it's okay to judge an entire group without concern for the individual."
--The worst people
Funding or otherwise supporting a religion is understood to fall under the establishment clause. So when you fund something, or let it use your property, or otherwise enable it you are establishing it. The issues with this particular school is that it is publicly funded. There are many, many private, religious schools out there that teach all kinds of viewpoints including creationism that comply with one or more religious traditions. These are not in question, it is only the ones being funded by the government that are being looked at askance. If you choose to go against any number of supreme court decisions and take a very narrow view of the meaning of the word establishment to be a strict synonym with found or start it would allow the government to effectively promote a state religion by sending it unlimited funds. BTW, when you are reading about similar issues you will see the 'establishment clause' referenced. This is what they are talking about, saying that whatever the government is doing is supporting, funding, or otherwise establishing a religion in violation of the constitution.
I'll go one better -- I'd be happy to let them get away with creationism as a legitimate theory -- if they actually examined it critically.
Let them get all into buffoonlike "design". Let them explore irreducible grotesquerie and irreducible cruelty. Let them examine the statistical validity of intelligent design, where, of dozens of examples, most have been shot down, an ongoing process, so let them draw their own conclusions as to the probable certainty of the remaining.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
(yep - prolly gonna get modded down, but meh.)
Yea, some people just can't handle the truth when it contradicts their preconceived notions. The irony is that the group here is presumed to be more open minded than your average fundamentalist, however when it comes to challenging something they've "always known to be true," they balk and scream just like the people they criticise, regardless of what the actual facts are.
FWIW, yours is probably one of the most intelligent and well thought out commentaries on religion I've seen in quite some time.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yes. They should include at least Islam's and Hinduism's viewpoints :P
Well, the first part is true. The "Texas Standard" does exist, and forms the baseline pre-customized form of some textbooks. The part that's untrue is that a tiny podunct charter school is the same as the state board of standards.
Your fault for electing George Dumbass Bush... then Governor Hairgel... Taliban Dan... Louie Gohmert... Ted Cruz...
I'd like to point out a few things that might give some of y'all hope this year...
* Open election November 2014. Perry is stepping down. State Sen. Wendy Davis (D), is running and has a lot of momentum behind her on this! Yes, she's riding her 15 minutes, but that doesn't mean it won't work!
* Texas Board of Education Commisioner is appointed by the Governor. The present Commisioner was former head of the Texas Railroad Comission ( what does that tell you???)
* The Democratic party has grown considerably in last 2 decades, and with an open election on the plate, they are getting very good funding for this run.
The Republicans in Texas have really done such a number on minorities and women that there is a very strong chance a Democrat, Davis, will win. If that happens, Texas Board of Ed. Commisioner is out! And THAT, is what gives me hope when it comes to the absurdity of creationism even being mentioned with science or in schools.
What you have to understand though, is that the Dem's and Repub's are the same party as what's in the rest of the US, but they really aren't. Texas is it's own battle ground of a country. The parties are connected, but in a very different way. So much is in play in Texas, that D/R(TX) really does not equal D/R(any other state). They're similar, but far from the same.
Abiogenesis isn't falsifiable.
Just because something is difficult to falsify doesn't mean that it isn't falsifiable. For example, the process would be reproducible. So inability to create simple organisms of terrestrial type via abiogenesis processes after a reasonable period and effort would be a falsification. There should be some sort of fossil evidence of intermediate organisms. And current organisms should have indications of this abiogenesis origin (something like a belly button).
Yes...I mean affirmative.
Of course it's falsifiable. If we saw new species being created that were genetically quite unlike anything else we've every seen, that would falsify the idea that new species gradually evolve. But whenever we observe the changes between generations of organisms, we find that there are a relative handful of mutations which appear to be random, as the theory of evolution predicts.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
So why is a particular variant of creationism worthy of being an alternative theory and not all the other alternative theories (such as the world being a pile of turtles or J. R. "Bob" Dobbs intentionally accidentally creating the universe while blowing his nose?).
Because the people who propose that alternative would just teach science, given the choice, and the people who do this are convinced they're doing gods work and those other myths don't count?
You are being childish, vapant, and cowardly. Texas is one of the most successful of states part of 'Real America', with minimal threats to freedom coming from the state, inexpensive land, lots of economic opportunity in the technology and defense industries, a rugged individualist culture, many things to love, but your infinitely wise suggestion is to pick up and leave because of one downside instead of working to change it?
I don't even know why you wasted post-space with that crap.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Because when these people graduate, they become our peers in society. They become the people on your jury, they become the people that vote in our elections, and they become the people who end up brainwashing the rest of society.
who do this shit!
It's important to note that right now in US politics one party is completely and totally against the concept of scientific inquiry putting Newspeak-like religious rhetoric above all else.
There is no 'but the Democrats...' counterpoint on this...it's ALWAYS REPUBLICANS. It doesn't make the Democrat/Liberals better in some long-term philosophical way at all, but it forces a choice in a real-world context that alot of /.'ers can't mentally make.
I can't stress how important it is when placing blame to see past false dichotomies & historicity filled narratives to understand what these people who run our country *actually do*...and when you look it that way, the GOP are the enemy of society.
As someone pointed out below, the Texas system has a check/balance against this, but AGAIN, the person in that decision node is a REPUBLICAN and they do not operate as individual decision makers weighing options.
The GOP is a cadre of ignorance, working in rabid lockstep to kiss up to whatever money interest is telling them to on any particular day...this time its the religious conservatives anti-science people.
It's ok to just blame one party when they are truly at fault. Decide they are at fault and vote appropriately. The US system has been corrupted but the prinicples of it are sound if we **use** our democracy to it's full power.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Your fault for electing George Dumbass Bush... then Governor Hairgel... Taliban Dan... Louie Gohmert... Ted Cruz...
Congratulations, your expression of this preconceived notion serves to prove my point: You assume, because I accused you of something you didn't like being accused of, that I must be one of those "Stereotypical Texans" you obviously harbor so much hatred for.
Thing is, I'm neither a Texan, nor a supporter of either side of the One Party, D or R. So, by attacking a non-stereotypical person with accusations of stereotype, you support my contention that stereotypes are most oft perpetuated by those willingly stuck in a loop of ignorance.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
There's a historical analogy to all this going on: Until the rennaissance, the middle east was vastly more advanced than the West (it had medicine, mathematics and so on that just weren't known in the west until scholars studied there). Arabic was the language of trade, commerce and learning during the centuries of its pre-eminence as a cultural and scholarly center.
People would come from all areas of the 'civilised world' (this didn't really include Europe at this point, apart from maybe Italy) to study.
The problems arose with the ascendancy of a faction (Asharite) which was distinctly anti-rationalist. It gained increasing popularity over the Mutazilite faction (which had led the Islamic world to scientific ascendancy over centuries, epousing the Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, and following in those traditions).
As the power of the Asharites grew, scientific advancement in the middle east stagnated, and eventually it became a crime to copy philosophical texts, as they were an abhorrence in the eyes of God. These sins would eventually be punishable by executions, and the candle of scientific advancement was effectively snuffed out.
Compare this to today. From England grew a large empire (comparable effectively with the Islamic Caliphate) crossing many countries, and being quite the center of learning. People came from all over to study in England. This Empire has been largely disbanded, but the strings of learning have still carried on beyond it.
Over the last hundred years or so, the power and center of effective empire has shifted to America as the rationalist factions invested in learning, keeping church and state separate (as the founders would probably have been painfully aware of the problems of allowing them to merge), and ensuring minds could be kept open, and difficult questions asked.
However, there's now a growing push towards anti-rationalism. It hides itself within the main power structure, and has permeated the political strata to a huge extent (I believe the parts of the national pledge that mention god were only included in the 50s or 60s, never having been present before then), and seems to be getting ever more powerful. Parts of the population (and I've met them on travels) consider it taboo to "Trust science" as it's all God's Will. Exactly analogous to the Asharite faction of a thousand years ago.
We know what happens if that faction gains ascendancy. Scientific tradition fails, as being an intellectual makes you a threat to the religious theocrats, and they're very good at getting rid of threats, and making it 'acceptable', even desirable that these people are removed.
Arabic ceased to be the language of trade and learning once the Asharites gained ascendancy and the Islamic world was in their grip. They were overtaken by the West, which had learned from their teaching earlier, and took on the torch passed to them by the Greeks even earlier.
Nowadays, China is investing massively in education, and particularly science; their technological base has caught up with the Western World at a furious pace. This, quite possibly, is a saving grace; it means that there are definitely alternatives to keep learning alive, just in case the anti-rationalists that are gaining traction in America manage to topple it from within. It would likely mean that the language of trade and learning becomes Chinese, but hey, the world can survive that quite easily.
I guess we see if history does indeed repeat itself, or whether humanity, as a species, has got any brighter since the last time this rise and fall happened.
I never understood why California didn't exercise as much, if not more, power?
"with one caveat: that the state at least recognize that 'church' (in the generic Judeo-Christian sense) played a highly important role in the creation and development of the 'state'" this needs a bit of a fix
"with one caveat: that the state at least recognize that 'church' (in the generic Judeo-Christian sense) played a highly important role in the separation of church and state and development of the 'state'" i think thats a bit closer. they realized the tyranny of religion would not be a good idea to create a democracy
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
USA should hand it back to Mexico for a refund
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Creationism is not a theory, it's a complete fabrication of ideas that have been formed to explain what we don't know / understand, which means it's not science, it's pure hogwash. I have no problem teaching the concept of creationism in a religion class and offering up "holy" books as an example of early human's attempt to understand the world before proper science, but that is about it.
I honestly feel that religious contexts and teachings should be left out of the home and school for kids under the age of 14 or when you start high school. Giving a young child the amazing, magical, wonderful and beautiful story of a loving God, prophets, a loving church and eternal life is very damaging and very misguided. We should be helping young children to learn the skills required to reason and objectivity question everything, including those things we tell them that have proof.
Religion is the exact opposite of logic and reason, it laughs ( metaphorically ) in the face of using evidence to support claims and it shows children that if you blindly believe whatever is written down that you become a moral and ethical human, even when what is written down ( in the case of the bible ), is rape, slavery, death, sadomasochism and more. Now what loving parent would do that to a child?
A loving parent would promote critical thinking and reasoning. A loving parent would guide their child in the thought process that would be required to form objective questions and then help them seek evidence to support those questions. A loving parent would first teach the ACCEPTED theories that science supports, such as evolution, and allow the child to form alternative viewpoints. By having religion in schools and in fact in the science class you destroy all concepts of education, you teach children that a completive theory need only say no and offer no evidence and you basically start to erode the moral, ethical and logical fabric of society.
Personally I don’t want to live in a society where we teach kids that questioning without evidence is okay, where lying is personally acceptable as long as you have anything randomly written down and where you can disregard scientific principals because your random, immoral, unethical book says you can.
Religion is for religion class and should only be taught to children who have become old enough and smart enough to properly weight and compare the information provided to them. Until then you are only harming the child to teach them pure fiction. It would be no different than teaching harry potter as an acceptable alternative to evolution and the best part is that no school would do that, yet bring the bible into the classroom, which is no different and you bet it’s not only acceptable but the truth.
Then you should be in a better position to push back against these fundies that us atheists. To them, we look like we are attacking all aspects of faith. You have a child in the Texas system and a legitimate argument against the faux science curriculum. You don't want your kids to grow up and enter the job market with an implied asterisk next to their school records.
Have gnu, will travel.
Hey, leave philosophy out of this. Clearly you have never taken a philosophy class. The philosophy classes you are remembering passed with Enlightenment. I didn't realize you were that old. You do recall the Enlightenment, yes?
give them what they want but require they give equal time to beliefs that they don't believe in.
Yup, couldn't agree more. I can't wait for this version of the creationist-evolution debate to show up in schools: ODIN!
I am officially gone from
I wish I had mod points to mod this up.
My only hope is that as schools transition to using eBooks for textbooks, that textbook publishers no longer care as much. They can create a "Texas edition" complete with Jesus on a T-Rex, and a different edition that the rest of the country can use.
The final responsibility for education rests with the parents.
As long as you have responsible parents, the problem is not nearly as dire as some would like to make it out.
If parents are negligent in these matters, it really doesn't matter what fundie shenanigans are going on. The result will be total crap either way.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There are many theories on how the universe and life began. I for one have no issue being taught the top 5 theories where there are differing opinions, order the teachings randomly, but pass along who believes what and why they believe it. Allow the student to draw their own conclusions. They'll be stronger for it.
Right so:
Membrane first, protein first, nucleic acids first, Earth origin, extraterrestrial origin, and maybe slipping in volcanic vents somewhere in there.
That sounds like a pretty good top 5 list of current working theories. Notice that "god did it" is NOWHERE near the top 5 theories of how it happened.
It's like how most of America think the "big three" religions are the Christians, the Muslims, and the Jews.
Do I believe Darwin's theory? Sure I do. Do I believe in the lessons in the Bible? Sure I do.
That's good. That's really really good. That makes you a sane and rational person. Realize that the people behind the creationist movement and the ID movement are not like you. They believe in the Bible. Full stop. Everything else must conform to rule 1. To hell with the lessons of the bible, if the bible says 6 days, it was 6 days. That's a fact and you will have to pierce that veil of true belief to make them see otherwise. And any attempt to do so will make you a tool of Satan.
oh bollox. Should children learn about Storks bringing babies as a competing idea? Creationism has zero value or basis in fact.
"Those advocating creationism have just as many valid points as the rabid theorists believing as they do." list those valid points for our entertainment....
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Well, I guess my confession is that I am assuming that the correct measurement of education spending is per student not absolute levels. i.e., if the number of students increased by 20% but spending increased 10% I would consider that a cut in spending because we are spending less per student.
If spending levels are held constant, and students transfer to charter schools which are paid at a lower rate than public schools (because public schools get the sweetener of capital spending that charter schools do not.) then mathematically we know that while the absolute dollars going to public schools is declining the per student dollars must be increasing.
Can you tell me your reasoning why absolute dollars is a better way to meaure?
You seem very down on charters, but I'd like you to consider a few points.
First, public school funding in the US is a mess. We spend more than just about any other country in the world, yet have little to show for it. One reason is the crazy disparities that rich and poor districts have. Suburban schools with good student populations get funded at a better level than urban schools with horrendous student populations, when the reverse should probably be true. Charter schools help address this by separating funding from location.
Second, public schools tend to toe the line educationally. They are big institutions with a lot of momentum and little incentive to innovate. When they do try something new, it usually involves an experiment on a population of kids without any choice in the matter. Charter schools offer a way to experiment with new or untested methods using willing participants. It should not surprise you to find charters on average do no better than public schools - some ideas will not work out and some charters will be poorly run.
Third, public school - in an indirect way - helps perpetuate the cycle of poverty. Poor kids in a bad school have no choice. Kids of some means in a bad school can go to a private school. Charters aren't magic, but at least now you have something that poor kids never had before: the ability to flee to a better school.
Finally, I find the cycle of public money recycled into mandatory payments to lobbyists to be objectionable. To some extent, charters help break this cycle.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
well, you shouldn't make troll statements like this "Did feminism lead to single parent homes with greater financial dependency on public welfare? Unless I'm very much mistaken, it did promote movement in that direction. "
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I remember the beginning. it was almost 10 years ago and The catholic church was shutting down churches and loosing members. They identified the problem as "science is killing god". internal documents stated that a war between religion and science was hitting a tipping point. The church hired a think tank. A memo from the think tank was leaked. It read that to cause doubt about religion in science was the same tactic needed to fight science. A wedge needed to be driven into the foundation of science to cause doubt. They had Identified an "exploit" . It was Evolution. The tactic would be to cause doubt by offering a religious based explanation and it was called creationism.
google it
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
How cute, you think evolution is falsifiable.
The theory of Common Descent (Evolution) makes quite a few falsifiable predictions [1] consistent with observed evidence.
Of course, what the Creationists tend to have a problem with isn't Evolution per se (though that's where they focus their efforts), but rather abiogenesis, the concept of a lifeform coming into existence naturally from non-living materials. That is completely separate from Evolution, which is the concept that all life on Earth can trace its origins back to a single living organism (however it came to be here).
[1] Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.89. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I'm (not trolling, genuinely) curious to know if you don't see any link between the feminist movement and the social side effects I listed. Is your objection to the factuality of my statement, or is it your view that I was discussing facts that Should Not Be Uttered? Note that I didn't say that feminism's goals are wrong, or that I wished the feminist movement didn't happen, but merely commented on social and economic features that emerged as side effects.
of course it is, only dumbass creationists think its not
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
A little of both, actually, to be honest... Firstly, I'm incredulous that anyone is as stupid as this article paints them to be, but be that as it may, it's the "hit and run" feel of the article. I'd have preferred to see longer snippets of text for context (I know they're limited by fair use laws and can't do entire pages). And while I don't agree with what what the textbook appears to be teaching, it doesn't come right out and claim evolution is wrong and that creationism is correct. Yeah, they're fudging stuff, but it seems so fashionable to go texas bashing, when other states and cultures have faults too. Technically, evolution is still a theory so they can't strictly be accused of lying -And so is gravity, so don't misunderstand my own personal views, it's just that the thing reads like a witchhunt. In time, Darwinism will sort out the stupid from the rest. .. really? If I'd wanted to troll (which I don't do) I could've done a lot better than that.
And whoever marked me "troll",
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
How sad for these children no one is thinking about.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
So do you have an answer somewhere in there to the question I asked?
As a creationist with a scientific background, I don't have a problem with either Evolution per se or abiogenesis per se. Science is merely observing and attempting to explain with a best-fit model what is seen -- what's wrong with that?
Instead, I have a problem with the religion of Evolution/abiogenesis and the battle of its priests against the church. I'm not claiming all or even most scientists fall into this realm, but the vast majority of the vocal anti-creationism crowd certainly does.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
If you want to teach kids ontology, then by all means advocate the creation of a class for that purpose
Look, I'm all for opening the doors of knowledge, but isn't an entire course on cancer a bit heavy for elementary school children?
Last post!
The worst mistake that we can make is believe that we humans do know it all. We observe, we learn, we draw conclusions...repeat. We need to teach critical thinking and allow our youth to draw their own conclusions and learn to challenge everything they are taught.
If you teach critical thinking correctly, they might grow up to disagree with you. Most of the Christian schools want to brainwash their children and indoctrinate them. They are quite unabashed about it. They keep harping "critical thinking" because they think that is a rock solid argument and all science supporters must agree once you invoke critical thinking. But science supporters immediately see through their hypocrisy.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Abiogenesis is the proper term for the beginnings of life. The scientific theory of evolution does not apply there at all. Abiogenesis is a completely different field of study than evolution.
As far a species to species evolution (what I would call "speciation", rather than "macro-evolution") _has_ been observed in laboratory conditions and in the field. And even more than that, the scientific theory of evolution predicts that it would happen.
What's that, you say? A scientific theory made a prediction, and that prediction was found to be true? Damn.
And not only does the theory of evolution make predictions about future speciation events, it makes predictions about those that happened in the past as well. There has not been a single case of transitional fossils found that contradicts the theory of evolution.
Please take your tired, ad-hominem rhetoric home.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
USA, land of the enslaved, home of the dumb.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
There is very much doubt about the age of the earth, solar system., universe, and all the "dating" methods used to obtain these numbers. What you don't want to admit is that this doubt exists because if you do, you have a huge amount of work ahead of you in re-writing everything you believe. Dr. Hugh Ross made an interesting comment about this: let y'all have those 6 or 9 zeroes and say, "So what?" You need HUNDREDS of zeroes to even get your life-by-incremental-changes started. Or do you not know the actual probability of randomly assembling a DNA molecule with ALL laevo-rotary amino acids? If you don't like "creation," who cares? At least it doesn't self-contradict.
Cranky educator.
Democracy can be a real bitch when you live around ignorant people.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
It does. Everyone who spews the bullshit, "Texas buys the most text books and thus controls the market" is just wrong. The textbook market it broken into two markets that can be described as California and Texas. The reason you don't hear about California is that were are not Bible thumping morons and Science rules our Science Classes and Religion is rules the Religion Classes. Same thing with our Sex Ed. You don't hear about the controversy about California Sex Education, because there is none. We teach real sex in our sex ed. classes.
Linux O Muerte!
Texas is one of the most successful of states part of 'Real America',
Fuck right off.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Thanks for posting. Very interesting. Asimov wrote of similar trends in his Foundation series, when ignorance and superstition would make cyclical gains and losses. He talked of an age in which ignorance was so widespread that doctors just referred to medicine as "magic food" rather than try to get it into the people's thick skulls that it was good for them.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Critical thinking requires observation of opinion and fact, of weighing evidence presented in front you in a unbiased way. If this was a critical thinking class they would teach both sides then give evidence of both sides and have the children decide which is more plausible. I doubt creationism have much going for it, unlike the earth being billions of years old (carbon dating) and theory of evolution (super bugs)
This isnt for critical thinking, this is to teach our kids the exact opposite of critical thinking, this is to teach kids how to blindly follow any stupid idea someone throws at them....i guess it makes sense parents like this want there kids to be like this.
"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." It also brings up social Darwinism as if it's an aspect of evolutionary theory and introduces doubt that the Earth is billions of years old."
"Other so-called education texts being used by the Responsive Ed program teach Western superiority and how feminism forced women to 'turn to the state as a surrogate husband.'"
Stone: ... I think I'm gonna be unwell.
Swan: Stone, women are unwell, men vomit.
Kudos to the person who knows which movie this is from. The star of this movie died just recently.
"Unfortunately, the person whose job it is to do the squashing (Sen. Dan Patrick, chair of the Texas Senate Education Committee) has said that he believes in Creationism and is a fan of the program."
Is there some reason this guy(??) isn't in prison or dead for violating his oath of office?
Actually California is a special case, and there are several political and economic reasons why Texas is more influential, even though California is bigger.
There are California-centric text books, not just for history - this makes it tough to get the "volume discount" for the rest of the nation.
Texas is one of the few states with a pervasive and separate multi-year state specific history curriculum (throughout your education, you have a "Texas History" class as well as a "History" class). Because of this seperation, "History" books approved in Texas can be used in any state, because the locale specific stuff is an entire separate book.
California and New York have strong unions especially for educators. In Texas, though they exist, Unions are hobbled and have little influence on the board of education, because... conservative. The result is that unilateral decisions are more difficult. It may be more enlightened, but it is a lot more difficult to make a decision when you have to ask someone besides your Minister.
Of California, Texas, and New York... Texas has the lowest spending per pupil. Again, Walmart effect. It is to get your own books if you are able to spend more per pupil than the big 3, but when you have to budget LESS per pupil? you have to buy the cheaper books... the ones Texas bought. CA and NY can insulate themselves from TX textbooks, a few rich smaller states can too... everyone else is on a budget, with either less money or less buying power, or both.
Get out of there! There are businesses out there that consider their employees to be the people who make the company valuable and successful, rather than costs to be cut.
as much as Florida! Where else can adults walk around dressed up like a cowboys without people thinking they look sort of silly?
In dental school we had a joke: How do you know the toothbrush was invented in Texas? Because if it had been invented somewhere else it would have been called a teethbrush!
I used to get upset about things like teaching creation as science and denying real science. I've decided not to let it bother me. The world needs Walmart greeters and people to clean toilets. Apparently Texans have decided that that is best use of their youth. More power to them!
Which is why you have a constitution to protect from the tyranny of the majority. Why is this hard for you?
Native Texan here, 42 years old, I can say this is 100% accurate and I am thoroughly disgusted with my state. They are not trying to remove the separation of church and state, they have obliterated it altogether. You may have to live here to understand how bad the far right-wing fundies have wormed their way in to every aspect of social life here in TX, but you won't have to live here for long to get it. Pushing the religious ideologies, through the use of law, is alive and well in TX. In 2010, lobbyists spent 43 million dollars on Ideological/single issues, and that is just what is accounted for. When I visit my dentist, they have a certain hygienist that thinks she is being coy, and without fail, pings me about my beliefs... best answer is no answer. Fortunately, you can spot a fundie pretty easy... they usually have anti-abortion and gospel radio bumper stickers, right beside a Jesus fish or two. Not only are these people on the board of education slowly deleting history, they are proud and smiling about it. They believe it is a real accomplishment that they have made for the citizens of Texas, and they absolutely understand the impact it has on the rest of the nations textbook purchases. I tried to find the picture that was snapped as they voted on a certain science textbook a few years ago, it was almost unanimous, and you could see the shit-eating grins on their faces. Just disgusting, and the ignorance runs rampant. Folks, their is a reason TX ranks 50th in a couple of key areas. Number of minimum wage jobs and number of citizens without health insurance.
Because they don't purchase them all at once. TX does it very uniform.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Sooo, you can't see how the majority could change a constitution, or say amend it? Great protection there.
Face it, Texans aren't going to change. They have their state constitution & laws. They're basically fine with them. Or they'd vote to change them.
That's actual democracy in action. No matter how fucking stupid the laws are.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
"Do I believe that we humans are infallible?"
Wrong question. It should be "Do I believe any human is infallible?" Gets rid of the Pope concept directly.
>realize that very close to half of the country is not in lock-step with social liberalism.
Yes, we have a ton of ignorant social conservatives in poorer, less educated parts of the country, and they do stupid things like claiming that feminism has caused greater dependence on public welfare, while glossing over the alternative of women staying with terrible men who dominate and abuse them.
I don't think we should ever let these stupid, superstitious people take the lead again. Awful, constantly lying, religious authoritarians are finally being marginalized after a terrible history of letting them get their way.
We have already decided, as a nation, between the 1st and 14th amendment, that no government gets to decide the religion of its citizens. If you don't like it, I suggest you move out of the country.
If they want to teach creationism in science class, there should also be a requirement to teach 'alternative' religions in their churches. Just imagine how rabid they'd get if we required their Sunday schools to include Islam and Hinduism... would be totally worth it since it would reveal these people for what they are - violent, bigoted assholes.
Religious absurdity is not an alternate theory. It's a failure to think at all.
You don't actually believe that teaching children discredited archaic beliefs is giving them useful information, do you?
And this: "come for the Socialists/Jews". makes you look like an utterly deranged wingnut, fed on a diet of alternate-reality Christianist media like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. The wingnut blogs, hate radio, and Fox noise are not quality thought-leaders.
Texan Republican Politicians learn to speak out of both sides of their mouth simultaneously, at a young age. This should give you some idea of how completely over-run the TX political system is with right-wing fundamentalists. Nobody is willing to pick it up and run with it as a violation, because they are ALL on the same team. Wendy Davis and Leticia Van De Putte may get voted in, but that is a long-shot given how dug in the conservatives are. Ask Tesla motors what they believe about "Texas is open for business"... Typical Perry douchebaggery, and large campaign donations by the Auto Dealers Association. But hey, we have a liquor store, title loan and fast food restaurant on every corner.
Religious absurdity ... failure to think ... discredited archaic beliefs ... utterly deranged wingnut ... alternate-reality
I'm always amazed that those who would consider themselves "quality thought-leaders" need to resort to name-calling to discuss evolution. It's no different than the Slate article; why bother with facts when propaganda will do?
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
Yes, we have a ton of ignorant social conservatives in poorer, less educated parts of the country, and they do stupid things like claiming that feminism has caused greater dependence on public welfare, while glossing over the alternative of women staying with terrible men who dominate and abuse them.
Reading your statement carefully, it sounds like you agree that feminism led to these effects, but you consider the alternative worse. I agree with you that the alternative is worse. But why are you so adamant that it's bad to talk about the negative effects, since you apparently admit that these effects are a real phenomenon? Are some facts OK to talk about, and we should self-censor on others?
(I can't shake the perception that it was a mistake to post at all on this thread, as it amounts to a two-minutes-hate exercise against Texas and anybody else who sticks their neck out, even if to attempt to engage in rational conversation.)
I don't think we should ever let these stupid, superstitious people take the lead again. Awful, constantly lying, religious authoritarians are finally being marginalized after a terrible history of letting them get their way.
Why don't you tell us how you really feel, Jeff? :)
there are schools in Texas!!!
The danger isn't so much what they'll end up believing.
In all honesty, nobody needs to BELIEVE Common Descent. They need to UNDERSTAND it. It quite literally is the underpinning of most of modern biology.
The real danger here isn't the confusion over Biology or the danger of blurring the lines between Church and State. No, the real problem is that the only way folk can conflate Evolutionary Theories with "alternatives" is to ACTIVELY teach against basic skills of Critical Thinking. This is further compounded by purposeful distortion of redefinition of Science and the Scientific Method.
These practices ripple out to all fields of Science and set yet another generation up to be complete suckers for marketing, propaganda and political manipulation.
I don't see it. I see you making a comment about how somehow capitalism and freedom leads to problems which are irrelevant to my question.
Even if Texas seceded from the US, they will still drag the US down their "rabbit hole" due to lack of an organized counter balance on the influence their money has on text books.
Sadly, the open text book project won't be of much help. As great the potential of this project for increasing rational thought, ultimately, someone has to put in money to make the texts available, whether electronically or in print. The conservatives who are running text book selection in Texas aren't going to let federal tax money pay for it. And if they'd even touch it at all, more likely they would take the material, re-edit it, then make profits from the distribution (and maybe printing) charges.
The organizations still doing actual science are either under the control of similar conservatives or barely have enough money to do science, let alone donate enough to the open text book project to make a real difference.
And if a grass roots organization tried, how much money would it be allowed to raise before it gets either co-opted or shutdown?
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
Since charter schools aren't required by the government, your arguments are, and have been, illogical.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Whoops, you've just invented the same excuse the petty tyrants have. It'll get smashed in courts, and you can go cry some more.
You're funny.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I know, right?
of course it is, only dumbass creationists think its not
A falsifiable theory wouldn't need religious zealots for its defense. Q.E.D.
The behavior of random humans has no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory. In said human's defense:
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Wow, a rational response in this thread; nice to see.
I don't agree that Intelligent Design (ID) is an argument from ignorance. In fact, it's exceptional to find opponents to ID that have actually investigated the matter with any rigor.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
They fail because of the "starve the beast" approach that the GOP loves to use when they want to kill something. take away it's funding a little at a time until it falters, then point out what a failure it is.
Remember, us public schools were number 1 in the world for a long time before the starvation began. the only reason they want it dead is to divert all that money away from children's heads and into their own pockets via "privatization". Many examples in towns where they have managed to kill the public schools and use the charter system to replace them- they cost more and have slipped further down the ranks than they were when the program was initiated. less efficient, less effective, but someone is getting rich from the whole deal.
however, way back then they were good schools, and had none of this horseshit polluting the education program.
A few people whined and bitched, but they were told to take it to a church school or STFU about it.
"But, fwiw, everyone who was allowed to stay is an H1B holder."
And being paid an average of 25% less, with deportation threats to hold over them if they decide 80 hours a week should rate overtime or comp time.
"Don't take it personal, it's just business." -Direct quote when I and about 1000 others were laid off to be replaced by H1B holders and outsourcing.
I highly doubt there is much crossover between the ones who protest creationist biology books and the people telling you to get a job ya bum.
Unless you mean the ones protesting good biology- in which case you are mistaken. they do not go the democratic route- they pay of elected officials and insert their own people to head up critical points in the selection process instead.
It always saddens me when I encounter the religion vs. science debate because I don't think there should be any disagreement between the two. Both science and religion are studies of reality; though the approaches are radically different. I'm not familiar with the creation accounts of other religions, but I think the overall progression of creation described in the Bible fits current scientific understanding of planetary and ecological development quite well (though I'm no expert in either field). God used the natural laws that He created to form the universe that we see. I think the belief held by many biblical creationists that the universe was formed in six literal days is a misinterpretation of the biblical text. Days are often used in the Bible (and in modern colloquial English) to represent time periods or eras. I also think that the theory of macro evolution arose and is perpetuated by serious misinterpretation of observed data. Maybe my understanding of the theory is flawed, but wouldn't a good test of the theory be whether or not we find evidence of countless transitional species representing the ancestry of all the species that we see today? Have we found those and I'm just unaware of it? By the way, for anyone who is more interested in learning how science and the Bible agree than in mud-slinging, this website offers a lot of good information: http://www.reasons.org/
You may be on to something there. The creator as incompetent and sadistic cretin sounds pretty consistent with observable facts.
Have you noticed that life is cruel and insensible?
That's because the creator is angry and insane -- Sithrak the Blind Gibberer!
So why not convert to Sithrak -- the god who hates you unconditionally.
http://imgur.com/gallery/YmOBmx1, sourced from:
http://oglaf.com/sithrak/ (use caution: other pages on this site are definitely NSFW)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Any theory they wish to present is welcome. they present nothing- all they do is attack existing science with lies. They distort findings, quote mine, and outright lie in their claims. When debunked, in detail, with facts, findings, and a point by point explanation of where their claim has been falsified- they merely repeat the claim louder.
It is not a matter of being afraid of the competition. It is a matter of keeping lunatics from polluting the education system with nonsense.
Perhaps you are a product of these religious PUBLICLY FUNDED charter schools?
Anyone can pray, anytime they choose. The only thing outlawed is the ability of any employee to force kids to pray.
you'd shit yourself in the rush to burn down the school if your kid came home and told you the principal led them all in prayer to Satan.
As a creationist with a scientific background, I don't have a problem with either Evolution per se or abiogenesis per se. Science is merely observing and attempting to explain with a best-fit model what is seen -- what's wrong with that?
Nothing. So why did you claim that Evolution does not make falsifiable predictions?
Instead, I have a problem with the religion of Evolution/abiogenesis and the battle of its priests against the church. I'm not claiming all or even most scientists fall into this realm, but the vast majority of the vocal anti-creationism crowd certainly does.
That's not my experience at all. I find that the vast majority of the vocal anti-creationism crowd is merely opposed to teaching religion in a science class. Clearly there is some overlap, as science and religion are both branches of philosophy. The problem is why one tries to advocate a scientific approach to spirituality or a religious approach to explaining the natural world. I have no problem with schools teaching both, provided they keep them separate and avoid bias regarding any particular religion (or non-religion, as the case may be).
It's not like there's much to teach regarding creationism in any case, from a scientific point of view. I'm imagining something like this: "Some people think that our universe was created by some external entity beyond our ability to directly observe. This theory, if 'theory' is truly the right word, makes no falsifiable predictions and thus tells us nothing useful about the physical world. Now open your textbooks to the section on evolutionary biology. Can anyone tell me how the Theory of Evolution can help predict which environmental factors tend to encourage the evolution of more virulent strains of common diseases?"
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
In one of the great ironies of our time, those arguing for or supporting creationism are actually providing clinching proof that they themselves have failed to evolve into human beings: they're not members of homo sapiens, as they have clearly failed part of the qualifying intelligence test.
Given that they are -- at best -- inferior primates, why should those of us who are clearly superior grant them human rights -- which, as the label indicates, are exclusive to humans? I certainly see no reason why we should be so generous.
Instead, I think, we should strip of them of the franchise, of the right to own property, of their financial assets, and of their citizenship. They should be treated decently, of course, for the same reasons that we should treat horses or dogs decently. But certainly they don't merit consideration as peers, as by their own actions, they've shown they aren't. I envision vast farms where they're lovingly tended until it is time to harvest their organs -- painlessly, of course, but inevitably. Their meat is the only value that they have to the human race, and it would be a pity to waste or damage it.
Selective breeding is artificial selection and *demonstrates* current evolutionary theory.
Genetic engineering is intelligent design. That can work, but it requires a lot more outside intervention.
Since charter schools aren't required by the government, your arguments are, and have been, illogical.
But we are required to pay taxes to said government that ends up funding the religious dogma in those charter schools. It is irrelevant that we have the option to have our children attend the charter schools, paying for them is not.
Therefore, illegal.
Leave the STEM jobs to the blue state kids....
Before the Enlightenment, every culture in history did, in fact, go down that path.
Hyperbole does not help your credibility.
Nothing. So why did you claim that Evolution does not make falsifiable predictions?
I was speaking tongue-in-cheek about the religion of evolution, not the science of evolution. Certainly, scientifically speaking, evolution has falsifiable predictions; not that it matters to the zealots.
That's not my experience at all [ ... ] It's not like there's much to teach regarding creationism in any case, from a scientific point of view.
You contradict yourself. You seem to believe by faith that there is no substantive research possible toward creationism.
Tens to hundreds of thousands of scholars throughout the ages have devoted considerable portions of their lives in the study of God and creationism, yet secular scholars of today refuse to even examine the evidence or even acknowledge its existence.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
The UN Charter on Human Rights that says everyone has a right to an education (Article 26)? [And the USA is a signatory]
I don't recall it saying that anyone has the right to be indoctrinated.
So while they are not public in that they can pick and choose who they let in...
Depends. In Colorado, they cannot pick and choose whom they let in--just like the public schools. This is generally done in order to prevent racial/ethnic segregation, but your post makes me realize another advantage: it may help prevent charter schools that cater to the lunatic fringe.
I never understood why California didn't exercise as much, if not more, power?
In many states, textbooks are selected at the level of the local school district. In Texas, they are selected at the state level for all school districts.
with minimal threats to freedom coming from the state
What are the Texas laws on abortion, again?
I am in full agreement with you, but if there's one tip I can give: please, always triple check that you spell pub*l*ically properly.
sorry, I was educated in Texas... We weren't taught what "Pubic" meant.
If you don't think women should be equal then just say so, don;t hide it behind attacks on the feminist movement. I could easily say the "side effects" as you put them are down to the rise of the religious right and their aim to put womens rights back into the dark ages as thats what the shiity book thells them
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"I don't agree that Intelligent Design (ID) is an argument from ignorance. " - thats your problem then.
"In fact, it's exceptional to find opponents to ID that have actually investigated the matter with any rigor" - they have to explain to the ID idiots how things work as the ID idiots have no clue. ID has NO proof only "God did it"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
There is no way we can experimentally test our ability to accurately predict the distant past from present day evidence, and no way we could have already done so. The past will never happen again, and we cannot magically create time machines. We do not know, and cannot know. What we can work out, however, is the answer to the question of what happened provided we assume 'continuity' of things like the laws of physics, and many other such assumptions.
There is a nice neat parallel in mathematics. You'll see people claim that 1+2+3+... = -1/12. This is not true, but is almost true. The zeta funciton zeta(s) = sum_{n=1}^{infinity} 1/n^s for all s>1. There is a unique analytic continuation of the funciton given by this sum where convergent to almost of the rest of the complex plane (and that almost the rest includes -1). If you evaluate that continuation at -1, you get -1/12. If you abuse notation, you get 1+2+3+...=-1/12. What is actually the case is that if 1+2+3+... converged to a meaningful value, that value would have to be -1/12. But obviously this doesn't prove convergence.
When it comes to distant past stuff, everything is done under an unproven hypothesis that the methods used work: there is no point researchers questioning this since it can't be verified. Again, this is similar to proofs that rely on the Riemann hypothesis. When we can't show something, we do our best to work around it. What you read in science books comes from that sensible school.
When people forget those tacit assumptions and make metaphysical pronouncements that things we can never have seen must look a certain way, using arguments based on evidence that we cannot possibly have tested in the circumstances we are applying them, is when proper science descends into pseudoscience. And too many of the science crowd are guilty here. You should know precisely what hypotheses your results rely on, and only a few have the time to care, what with all the need to crank out n peer-reviewed research papers a year to satisfy your funding body.
John_Chalisque
I could easily say the "side effects" as you put them are down to the rise of the religious right and their aim to put womens rights back into the dark ages as thats what the shiity book thells them
That makes absolutely no sense. I don't think anybody (besides you) is claiming that the prevalence of divorce and emergence of single parent households dependent on government welfare is due to the religious right. If you seriously believe that, though, and aren't just flaming, then I would be interested to hear why. I'm always willing to learn something new.
If you don't think women should be equal then just say so, don;t hide it behind attacks on the feminist movement.
You need to chill, dude. I didn't say anything about women not being equal. And the feminist movement encompasses a lot more than equality for the sexes. For one thing, many feminists have no intention of achieving equality - they are quite comfortable asserting female superiority (and can articulate all kinds of reasons why, such as linking testosterone to war and crime).
The feminist movement (like all large human movements) is a mixed bag with both good stuff and bad stuff. You're oversimplifying things and debating a straw man, rather than responding to what I actually said.
are you trying to have a discussion on this topic?
posting links to Fox News and blockquoting me in large swaths is not a discussion...it's you trying to earn your pay as a paid PR commentator
get a real fucking job...or at least do yours better & try engaging in a discussion
Thank you Dave Raggett
But history does.
"Other so-called education texts being used by the Responsive Ed program teach Western superiority and how feminism forced women to 'turn to the state as a surrogate husband.'" I don't know what this has to do with either creationism or "anti-science". "According to anthropologist Lionel Tiger, the ancient unit of a mother, a child and a father has morphed from monogamy into “bureaugamy,” a mother, a child and a bureaucrat. The state has become a substitute husband. In fact, it doesn’t replace just the husband, it replaces the entire nuclear and extended family, raises the children and cares for the elderly." Quoted in 'The Fatherless Civilization' :: http://tresmontes.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/the-fatherless-civilization/
A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. ~ Mark Twain
Then why is it only the Christian creation myth taught as the competing theory? Where's Norse mythology, and Roman and Greek? Oh, it's not about teaching "competing theories" but about spending government money on pushing The One State Religion.
Too bad the founders of the country didn't foresee this and setup separation of church and state.
Learn to love Alaska
It's like how most of America think the "big three" religions are the Christians, the Muslims, and the Jews.
What's wrong with that? 2 of the 3 are the top 2, and the third is arguably the basis for the other two.
Learn to love Alaska
The ACLU has repeatedly fought for the right to exercise religion freely in school. Government money going to pay for religious studies, for only one specific religion is close enough to establishment to count. And that's what "creationism" is, as it's purely Christian. When they teach Norse and Greek along side it as "competing theories" then we can talk about it being possibly allowable.
Learn to love Alaska
Did feminism lead to single parent homes with greater financial dependency on public welfare? Unless I'm very much mistaken, it did promote movement in that direction.
You are very much mistaken. It resulted in it, but didn't lead to it or promote movement in that direction. The counter-movement against women is what lead to it. Had there not been so much resistance to equality, there wouldn't have been the result that you indicate.
Learn to love Alaska
The freedom of religion (Amendment #1) is taken to indicate a separation of church and state. It's Amendment #1. Most have at least made it through that one.
Learn to love Alaska
Imagine how they will get a job?
If their science is based on mythology, fairy stories and make believe, it is reasonable to assume the rest of their education is too.
1+1= any number you want!
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
It's not anti-science your idiot, moron democrats!! Creation was real, science has proved it time and time again. If you don't like it, then give up your citizenship and move to the facist, socialist or communist country of your choice at your own expense, since you hate the United States so much!!!
Because #3, Judaism is not "big". The numbers just aren't there.There are more Sikh than there are Jews. But hey, you hear a lot more about the Jews than you do about the Sikh, so obviously it's the more major religion, right?
Go on, look it up.
And, just to explain the joke: if you were to propose "the top 5 theories" of abiogenesis, a number of very vocal Americans would assume that included their personal pet theory of creationism. Just like they assume that Judaism is religion #3 on the charts, they assume creationism has more of a following than it really does. Get it?
No, I don't get it. Judeaism is "important" but not "big" (in numbers). You are arguing that "not big" necessarily makes it "not important". You haven't substantiated that position.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that Christianity and Islam are sects or branches of Judaism (as well as other offshoots, such as Baha'i).
Chrysler was one of the "Big 3" even after Toyota made more cars in the USA and Chrysler was owned by a German company. Sometimes the definitions are updated more slowly that reality.
Regardless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to include Judaism in the religious Big 3.
Learn to love Alaska
No, my argument is that creationism isn't in the top 5 theories of abiogenesis.
And along the way, I didn't say Judaism is not important. I pointed out that people erroneously believe it's "big". You know, when they call it one of the "big 3".
It wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that Christianity and Islam are sects or branches of Judaism (as well as other offshoots, such as Baha'i).
It's about as reasonable as trying to argue that there are more Buddhists(376 million) than there are Baptists (100 million), Lutherans (75 million), or Methodists (75 million). It also about as reasonable as calling Judaism a branch/sect/offshoot of the Cannaanite's religion. (The dudes with Yahweh)
Sometimes the definitions are updated more slowly that reality.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. The worldview of a lot of people out there doesn't jive with reality.
Well, every time you turn on talk radio in the US, you hear about the Jew-owned banks and the Jew-started wars in the Middle-East. For so few Jews left, they sure get around.
Learn to love Alaska