Slashdot Mirror
Map of Publicly-Funded Creationism Teaching
Capt.Albatross writes "At Slate, Chris Kirk presents a map of schools in the USA that both receive public funding and teach creationism. It also shows public schools in those states where they are allowed to teach creationism (without necessarily implying that creationism is taught in all public schools of those states). There is a brief outline of the regulations in those states where this occurs, but the amounts involved are not discussed."
For all the trash that gets talked about Texas in this regard, it barely registers here, and only for some sort of "Responsive Ed charter school" that a Texan might explain better - sounds like it's not the normal school system.
Louisiana and Tennessee OTOH - ouch!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
on presumably a flat earth
More what?
Stoning of adulterers?
Slavery?
Animal sacrifice?
Other things Bronze Age religion requires?
If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
Unfortunately, the US's first major "nation building" failure might be said to have occurred after the civil war... We defeated the insurgency; but never really managed to rebuild a functional society in the southern provinces. If subsequent events are any guide, we may just suck at dealing with religious zealots with shitty human rights records.
Just can't let the 'I hate Christians' thing go can you?
It's not a "I hate Christians" thing. It's a "I hate dishonesty" thing. If you're teaching something in a class that claims to be a science class, then you are supposed to be teaching the scientific method (the core of "science") and things that have been learned and proven using the scientific method. Instead, if you are teaching creationism, you are not only teaching something that does not stand up to the scientific method, but you are also teaching that things that have been very well proven using the scientific method are wrong. This is dishonest. If you want to teach creationism or any other aspect of any other religion, that's great, just be sure to label the class "theology" and not something related to science.
How would you feel if, instead of something that Christians came up with, they were teaching Scientology as if it were fact? Do you think teaching that humans on earth came from the evil lord Xenu belongs in a science class? Regardless of which aspects of which religions are right or wrong, it belongs in a theology class, not a science class. Or, to make another analogy, should a school be teaching about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in a math class? Regardless of whether what they're teaching is right or wrong, that topic belongs in a history class, not a math class.
does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
No but my liver does. Always knew the damn thing was evil.
Nearly half of all Americans believe that humans were placed on earth in their current form, magically by the hand of God Himself, with no evolutionary changes or modifications every occurring. And the number is rising.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/218...
Do you want to know what brings about the biblical apocalypse? Ignorance of the natural world in which we live. Buckle your seatbelts, because the ignorant are starting to drive this bus we call civilization, and the last stop is not utopia.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Throwing invalid and in many cases demonstrably false claims at students who don't have the background to see the invalidity is ludicrous. I mean, why single science out? Why not teach Holocaust denial in history class? After all, wouldn't that challenge students too? Perhaps you could also teach 2+2=5 and French verb conjugation in English class.
Schools are supposed to teach science, like any other subject, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Teaching students that somehow just because someone calls some nonsense claim a "theory" is not teaching at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There's actually more logical evidence and less holes in the theory at the universe is a giant simulation.
Righto, matey. GIve me some testable predictions of your Simulation theory.
Evolution? We predict that organisms will change in response to changing conditions and we have observed it in action with the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prediction followed by confirmation.
Your turn.
Evolutionists want to teach evolution because they don't like religion.
No, that's wrong. Evolutionists want evolution taught because it is the best explanation was have for observed and verified facts.
people still pick up a fossil and say "nope, this must be the sole explanation."
No, they pick up a fossil and say "this must be the sole explanation that does not rely on introducing multiple additional non-testable hypotheses". I know you're upset that scientists won't simply wave their hands and say "God did it" in response to anything we don't understand, but that's not really how the scientific method works. Technically, we haven't actually proven that the entire universe isn't actually the complex masturbatory fantasy of a pimply 13-year-old superintelligent extradimensional being, but we don't feel guilty about discounting that explanation when we're trying to figure out how modern life forms originated. If we didn't apply this parsimonious approach to scientific investigation, we'd still be using candles and horses and enjoying a 25% infant mortality rate.